<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Food industry self-monitoring</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/food-industry-self-monitoring/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/food-industry-self-monitoring/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:20:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: SC</title>
		<link>http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/food-industry-self-monitoring/comment-page-1/#comment-16362</link>
		<dc:creator>SC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:56:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1314#comment-16362</guid>
		<description>Question for you: How are so many studies that benefit the industries that fund them winding up in peer-reviewed journals? (Today&#039;s example: you need fish AND walnuts for heart health, funded by the California Walnut Commission - and I&#039;ve nothing against walnuts, it just seems the conclusions are nicely convenient.) I&#039;ve thought that once a study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it has earned more credibility; but I&#039;m not so sure anymore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question for you: How are so many studies that benefit the industries that fund them winding up in peer-reviewed journals? (Today&#8217;s example: you need fish AND walnuts for heart health, funded by the California Walnut Commission &#8211; and I&#8217;ve nothing against walnuts, it just seems the conclusions are nicely convenient.) I&#8217;ve thought that once a study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it has earned more credibility; but I&#8217;m not so sure anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Burkett</title>
		<link>http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/food-industry-self-monitoring/comment-page-1/#comment-16231</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Burkett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:03:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1314#comment-16231</guid>
		<description>Such a cynic, Marion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Such a cynic, Marion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: volatileconst</title>
		<link>http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/04/food-industry-self-monitoring/comment-page-1/#comment-16222</link>
		<dc:creator>volatileconst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1314#comment-16222</guid>
		<description>The fact that McDonald&#039;s is on the list makes me think they should reevaluate their criteria for what constitutes an ethical company.  At least, what constitutes &quot;ethical&quot; in the US.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fact that McDonald&#8217;s is on the list makes me think they should reevaluate their criteria for what constitutes an ethical company.  At least, what constitutes &#8220;ethical&#8221; in the US.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

